search_cancellation_reasons

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by stating the API endpoint and a '[tier: readonly-owner]' hint, implying read-only access. However, it does not disclose return format details, behavior with no matches, or how parameters interact. The added context is helpful but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences that front-load the action. Every word adds value, and the API endpoint and tier are neatly included without clutter. No redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly minimal. It states the purpose and endpoint but lacks details on return structure and parameter combination logic. For a simple search tool it is sufficient, but it leaves important questions unanswered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters (officeIDs, reasonIDs). It does not explain their meaning or how they filter results. The phrase 'return matching IDs' suggests they are criteria for matching, but the exact semantics are unclear. This is a significant gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches configured cancellation reasons and returns matching IDs, with a specific verb (search) and resource (cancellation reasons). It also maps to the exact API endpoint. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling get_cancellation_reasons by using 'search' and 'matching IDs', though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_cancellation_reasons or other search tools. No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions is provided. The only hint is the API mapping, but it doesn't help an agent choose correctly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.